Review of Grounded ridge detection and characterization along the Alaskan Arctic coastline using ICESat-2 surface height retrievals by Lange et all.

In this paper, the authors introduce a novel method for detecting grounded sea ice ridges. They compare characteristics of grounded ridges in the Chukchi Sea with the ones of grounded ridges in the Beaufort Sea. They show that many ridges are grounded in water significantly shallower that the traditional stamuki zone. 

I find this novel approach very interesting. As stated by the authors, this new method could have many useful applications. Overall, I find that the paper is well written. At a few places, however, I would like the authors to clarify the text and to use more appropriate terms. For example, ridge depth is confusing while sail height and keel depth are more clear. Also, I think that often they just use the word 'ice' when they should use the expression 'level ice'.

Below the authors will find a few more major comments and a list of minor comments. 

I recommend major revisions (to give them more time) but the authors should really see it as moderate revisions.  

MAJOR COMMENTS

1) I think Fig.8 should be improved. The panels should show PDFs instead of histograms. It would then be easier to compare the distributions of grounded ridges in the Chukchi Sea to the ones in the Beaufort Sea.

2) The authors discuss the limitations of their approach in section 4.5 and acknowledge the uncertainty associated with their bathymetry data. First of all, I think there should be some clarifications on how they estimate the uncertainty in the bathymetry data. I don't think this is mentioned (Fig.5-7).  Given their low resolution bathymetry data, I think a possible improvement to their detection algorithm would be to consider a distribution of bathymetry at the location of possible grounded ridges. The mean of the distribution could come from the low resolution GEBCO data and the distribution around the mean could be estimated from the NCEI high resolution data. The algorithm could then estimate the probability of contact between the keels and the sea floor. I know this is beyond the scope of this paper but I think this should be discussed and presented as a possible improvement to the existing algorithm. I think the authors should have a look at this paper which introduces this idea for a model grounding parameterization:

Dupont et al., A probabilistic seabed–ice keel interaction model, the Cryosphere, 2022.

3) I really like Fig.10. The fact that there is landfast ice seaward of the "last" grounded ridges is an indication that sea ice has some tensile strength (or cohesion). I see an interesting study that could be conducted: the data of grounded ridges along with maps of landfast ice (the blue shading) could be used to estimate the tensile strength of sea ice. Again this is beyond the scope but could be discussed by the authors if they want to. The authors could have a look at this paper which describes how the viscous-plastic sea ice rheology can be modified in order to add tensile strength:

Konig and Holland, Modeling Landfast Sea Ice by Adding Tensile Strength, Journal of Oceanography, 2010.

MINOR COMMENTS

1) Abstract line 3: remove 'to describe an approach'.

2) line 27: It is not clear what you mean by 'unstable ice conditions' and the link with later freeze-ups and earlier thaws.

3) lines 30-38: This paragraph needs to be reworked. After the reference to Eicken et al. the first sentence should be 'Grounded ridges form either when a

compression ridge drifts into shallower waters and gets stuck in the sea floor or from an in situ collision between the shorefast ice and drifting pack ice'. Then the next sentence could start by 'Figure 1A describes how grounded ridges are created from the collision of the drifting sea ice with the shorefats ice'...

4) line 40: replace 'for the ice to reach' by 'for the keel to reach'.

5) line 40: 'the thickness of the ice'...do you mean 'the thickness of the level ice'? Please clarify.

6) line 44: 'Assuming some typical sea ice thickness...' are you referring to level ice again?

7) line 56: Shouldn't you remove 'spring' in 'spring shore-fast ice season'?

8) line 64: replace 'is likely to be grounded in the sea floor' by 'is likely to include grounded ridges as anchoring points'. 

9) line 97: remove one 'using'.

10) line 115: replace 'therefor' by 'therefore'.

11) Title for section 3.1: Should it be: 'Freezing degree day model to estimate level ice thickness'?

12) Section 3.1: What about snow in your freezing degree day model?

13) line 190: Are you sure about citing  Yu et al. 2014? I don't remember that they discuss the ratio of sail height to keel depth (and that it varies with the geographical location). 

14) lines 212-214: rephrase. Just say that the bathymetry is interpolated to the center (?) of the keel or something like that.

15) line 213: replace 'defined' by 'define'.

16) line 233: replace 'suggest' by 'suggests'.

17) line 335: You mean 'keel depth' instead of ridge depth? By the way you should change the labels in Fig.8 and 10. It should be sail height and keel depth.

18) line 350: rephrase

19) line 352: you should add that some of these ridges could drift in these shallow areas and get grounded. 

20) Fig.9: Would it be good to have a second column showing the maximum instead of just the mean?

21) line 423: '...seasonal landfast ice variability...' do you mean '...interannual landfast ice variability...'?

22) lines 427-428: Should you move up this sentence where you discuss models (line 423 for example)? It should also be rephrased. I am not sure I understand what you mean. 

Jean-Francois Lemieux

Please see attached PDF file